"Research is Not the Answer"

[_consiglieri]

He has written scholarly works, not only when he was a Chicago law professor but he has also written at least one scholarly work (in partnership with historian Marvin Hill) about church history, the book "Carthage Conspiracy"; and of course he has written and spoken extensively about faith since his call to the Twelve.

So you're saying Elder Oaks is a hypocrite, too?

[_kjones]

But on the other hand history and culture are rife with examples of the other: what happens when reason and science only prevail.

Are you talking about nontheistic totalistic ideologies? Faith is still the problem there.

I wasn’t thinking of any one specific example. I was only pointing out that there are bad example of both extremes: of entirely rational and scientific cultures (or at least cultures in which this was the ideal), and of entirely faith-based cultures. (An example of entirely faith-based culture, where outside reading and study is not only discouraged but forbidden, might be the FLDS out in Colorado City.)

[_kjones]

But mockery ... there is nothing clever or witty about mockery. Most of us grow out of it by the time we leave the 7th grade.

Right about that time when Mormon bishops start interviewing children by asking sexually explicit questions. You wouldn't happen to one of them, would you?

I have never been a bishop, Shulem. But my dad was a bishop twice, and a mission president. I have two brothers who have been bishops, also brothers-in-law.

Currently I am not conventionally active, but I am a believer. Very much so. I have been since the first week of my mission.

[_kjones]

He has written scholarly works, not only when he was a Chicago law professor but he has also written at least one scholarly work (in partnership with historian Marvin Hill) about church history, the book "Carthage Conspiracy"; and of course he has written and spoken extensively about faith since his call to the Twelve.

So you're saying Elder Oaks is a hypocrite, too?

No, I am not saying that.

[_kjones]

But on the other hand history and culture are rife with examples of the other: what happens when reason and science only prevail.

Are you talking about nontheistic totalistic ideologies? Faith is still the problem there.

My favorite novel is “The Possessed” by Dostoevsky (the Constance Garnett translation, not one of the modern translations). The character Peter Verhovensky is a nihilist. Both he and Stavrogin embody the “entirely rational and scientific” view. Stavrogin (at least as Peter envisions him) is a precursor of the “people’s commissar” who would arise only a few years later with 1917 revolution. Dostoevsky’s Stepan Verhovensky, the father of Peter, is an example of the foolhardiness of the entirely rational and scientific view. (For one thing, there is no such thing as an entirely rational and scientific human being, and Stepan Verhovensky is the perfect example of this.)

[_Dr. Shades]

But on the other hand history and culture are rife with examples of the other: what happens when reason and science only prevail.

Really? "Rife?" Can you name me a time in history when reason and science only prevailed?

[_Fence Sitter]

But on the other hand history and culture are rife with examples of the other: what happens when reason and science only prevail.

Really? "Rife?" Can you name me a time in history when reason and science only prevailed?

I would be satisfied with him providing an example of when faith overturned science.

[_kjones]

But on the other hand history and culture are rife with examples of the other: what happens when reason and science only prevail.

Really? "Rife?" Can you name me a time in history when reason and science only prevailed?

Have you ever read Graham Greene's "The Power and the Glory", about a Mexican state in the 1930s that banned religion? The main character in the story is a Catholic priest who continues his work although he is threatened with death at every turn. The story is based on actual historical events in Mexico.

And then of course there was "dialectical materialism", which morphed into the 1917 revolution, which morphed into the USSR ... in which atheism became the state religion, whether officially or de facto. Reason and science were the ideal, occupying the place faith and religion used to occupy. Atheism i.e. reason and science were given the status of religion. (And yes, atheism is a religion too.)

Note I said "ideal". States or cultures based wholly on science and reason are doomed to fail, just as states or cultures based solely on faith and religion are doomed to fail also.

It seems we are straying from the point of thread, and that is—

Is Pres. Oaks advocating ignoring study and reason in favor of a wholly faith-based approach? And my answer, or my take, based not only on what he said in the talk in question but based on what he has said and written for the last 40 years, or even longer . . . my take is that no, he is not saying this.

Rather, he is saying we learn "by study and faith". One without the other is incomplete. Research alone, without the faith that should go with it, is insufficient.

Now are there any perfect examples of a state or culture where reason and science were exalted and faith and religion purged entirely? No. And likewise there are no perfect examples of the opposite, a state or culture where faith and religion were exalted and reason and science banned (although the FLDS out in Col. City comes close).

I remember, or I remember reading, William F. Buckley (an observant Catholic) saying he'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book (this would've been in the 1960s) than the faculty at Harvard.

In other words, he'd rather be ruled by an odd and random assortment of Christians and Jews with the occasional agnostic, than he would by a group of bubble-dwelling ivory tower intellectuals who worship at the altar of "reason and science".

I think I'd agree.

P.S. - Actual quote:

"I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." William F. Buckley

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

[_consiglieri]

My favorite novel is “The Possessed” by Dostoevsky (the Constance Garnett translation, not one of the modern translations). The character Peter Verhovensky is a nihilist. Both he and Stavrogin embody the “entirely rational and scientific” view. Stavrogin (at least as Peter envisions him) is a precursor of the “people’s commissar” who would arise only a few years later with 1917 revolution. Dostoevsky’s Stepan Verhovensky, the father of Peter, is an example of the foolhardiness of the entirely rational and scientific view. (For one thing, there is no such thing as an entirely rational and scientific human being, and Stepan Verhovensky is the perfect example of this.)

Have you met Professor Daniel C. Peterson?

Have you ever read Graham Greene's "The Power and the Glory", about a Mexican state in the 1930s that banned religion? The main character in the story is a Catholic priest who continues his work although he is threatened with death at every turn. The story is based on actual historical events in Mexico.

And then of course there was "dialectical materialism", which morphed into the 1917 revolution, which morphed into the USSR ... in which atheism became the state religion, whether officially or de facto. Reason and science were the ideal, occupying the place faith and religion used to occupy. Atheism i.e. reason and science were given the status of religion. (And yes, atheism is a religion too.)

Note I said "ideal". States or cultures based wholly on science and reason are doomed to fail, just as states or cultures based solely on faith and religion are doomed to fail also.

I am guessing that means yes.

I remember, or I remember reading, William F. Buckley (an observant Catholic) saying he'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book (this would've been in the 1960s) than the faculty at Harvard.

In other words, he'd rather be ruled by an odd and random assortment of Christians and Jews with the occasional agnostic, than he would by a group of bubble-dwelling ivory tower intellectuals who worship at the altar of "reason and science".

I think I'd agree.

P.S. - Actual quote:

"I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." William F. Buckley

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

Sweet Jesus!

[_kjones]

My favorite novel is “The Possessed” by Dostoevsky (the Constance Garnett translation, not one of the modern translations). The character Peter Verhovensky is a nihilist. Both he and Stavrogin embody the “entirely rational and scientific” view. Stavrogin (at least as Peter envisions him) is a precursor of the “people’s commissar” who would arise only a few years later with 1917 revolution. Dostoevsky’s Stepan Verhovensky, the father of Peter, is an example of the foolhardiness of the entirely rational and scientific view. (For one thing, there is no such thing as an entirely rational and scientific human being, and Stepan Verhovensky is the perfect example of this.)

Have you met Professor Daniel C. Peterson?

I have never met Daniel Peterson. I have read 3-4 of his columns in the Deseret News, and some of his online stuff. I don't care for his politics. He doesn't often get into politics but when he does ... well I gather he is a very conservative Republican, and I am a Utah Democrat and have been since 2000.

I am also aware that some of you on this board seem to be obsessed with him ... why, I don't know.

For my part, I know very little about him. I don't often read LDS authors who are not historians or experts in a particular field. I have never read a "church book" in my life, or what passes for a church book. I have read B. H. Roberts "Comprehensive History" two times. I have read "Rough Stone Rolling" three times and I've read a couple of Bushman's essays. I've read "In Sacred Loneliness" and I sometimes read "Dialogue". I have glanced through "Mormon's Codex" (and liked what I read). I read part of Teryl Givens' "Wrestling the Angel" (and like what I read).

Bottom line ... my LDS reading mostly consists of (1) the scriptures i.e. the Mormon canon, and (2) Hugh Nibley. I like Hugh Nibley. I am about 25% of the way through his collected works.

But other than glancing through 3-4 of his columns in the Des. News, I haven't read anything Daniel Peterson has written.

I will sometimes read a conference talk, after watching the original broadcast.

And I will admit that, at least a couple of times a week, I like to read this forum and also Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board (although I rarely post there, and I only occasionally do here). These two forums are for me kind of like entertainment. And sometimes I even learn something from posters who know a lot more than I do.